Page 11 of 13 [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

20 Dec 2010, 4:25 pm

ouinon wrote:
I've been thinking, and reading, some more about the Wikileaks aspect of Assange's story, and am rather surprised to find myself thinking that Wikileaks may not be the wonderful thing that I have been believing it to be. :O :lol :? :lol

I became intensely interested in Wikileaks and Assange on reading, about two weeks ago now, about how Visa and Mastercard had suddenly refused to process payments for this "truth-telling" agency Wikileaks, etc, and on reading about the DDoS's with which another unrelated group, Anonymous, had retaliated.

To me it seemed wrong that Visa and Mastercard, and a swiss bank, and Amazon, and PayPal, and a couple of other servers, and so on, could withdraw services from a website like that, some of them supposedly because Wikileaks was doing something illegal, when there was no evidence for it, no official charge/verdict of illegality.

It was this string of events, and what seemed to me to be gross injustice or abuse of power by big global corporations, which caused me to see Wikileaks as an underdog, as an innocent victim, and Assange as some sort of Robin Hood of the internet, etc. I was almost instantly hooked on the drama. The behaviour of Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Amazon, etc convinced me that Wikileaks must be "good", especially as none of these internet giants had withdrawn services from the KKK, etc.

But I've just read a couple of articles ( one in particular by someone, Jaron Larnier, whose ideas/thoughts I have found very intelligent and interesting in the past ), questioning this take on Wikileaks, not from the Biden and associated rabid loathing and raised hackles shoot first etc point of view, but from a much more subtle, ambiguous, almost confusingly *un* "black and white" perspective. The suggestion is that what Wikileaks has done is not a force for good, that it may in fact be in a strange way "reactionary".

The Larnier article: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... aks/68217/

If what Wikileaks has done is in fact based on terribly black-and-white thinking about the qualities of "truth", on a very simplistic model/image/concept of, "information", it would be yet more evidence in favour of the theory that Assange is Aspergers, because black and white thinking is one of the classic "symptoms"/tendencies of people on the spectrum. ... ... ...
.


It may be this black and white thinking that has me so irritated. It seems I have to fully accept the heroism of Assange or be labeled a Bush sympathizer (rhetorical hyperbole in use)

edit:

Good article, btw.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


Alla
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 350
Location: Cork, Ireland

20 Dec 2010, 5:29 pm

I think it is obvious the guy has Asperger's. The fact that he does not want to reveal information about himself and his own life is often associated with aspie savants; people seem to think that he is hiding information because he is being paid by the secret service or is involved in some sort of secret campaign when he is probably just a private -person and thinks that there is nothing special about his life to reveal. He was probably a geek all these years and didn't have much of "a life" in the way NTs would understand.



EnglishLulu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2006
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 735

21 Dec 2010, 2:39 am

EnglishLulu wrote:
It's not that I'm perfectly willing to see a conspiracy. It's that I prefer to keep an open mind about information that I've read or seen or heard that I can't personally confirm.
wavefreak58 wrote:
But my mind is closed? Your arrogance is showing. You and I see the same information and are inclined towards different interpretations. But YOU consider your mind open. Is your mind open enough to consider that Assange may in fact BE a sexual predator?
Goodness! I do wish that people would actually read what I wrote instead of arguing with my non-existent shadow.

Nowhere have I denied the possibility that Assange may in fact be guilty of sexual misconduct. I dispute the terminology of sexual predator, because it seems that one woman vacated her apartment and he was staying there, then she returned unexpectedly early to her apartment while she knew he was still there, and they subsequently engaged in sexual relations. And the other woman is reported to have done lots of research about him, volunteered to help organise an event (but her assistance was declined) turned up to a seminar anyway, took lots of photos of him, went to lunch with him and a group of others, then went to the cinema and engaged in intimate contact, then took him back to her flat.

He may or may not have engaged in sexual misconduct, no one knows what happened in the bedroom apart from the parties who were there, but it doesn't seem to be predatory behaviour on his part when he believed the apartment was going to be vacant and it was the woman who returned early, and another woman who'd researched him turned up to the seminar, subsequently took him back to her apartment.

I've said all along that it's entirely possible that he might be guilty of some sexual offences. You're not wringing any concession from me. If you go back and read my earlier posts, if you can find somewhere I declare his undisputable innocence, please feel free to quote it. I can assure you, you will find I made no such assertion.

EnglishLulu wrote:
What I call a possibility that I'm prepared to keep an open mind about - that the US authorities might be working with the Swedish authorities to extradite Assange (given that there are apparent documented close links between the two countries and their politicians) - you call me seeing a conspiracy.
wavefreak58 wrote:
Hue? What the hell is it if it is not a conspiracy? A knitting circle?
It's nothing more or less than a possibility. The US authorities have apparently confirmed that they are seeking to find a way to prosecute him. If that's the case, then how do they propose to prosecute him? In order to prosecute him they would have to get him to the US. How will they do that? They will liaise with the UK and/or Sweden, given that Assange is already subject to extradition proceedings that might see him removed to Sweden. It's a working hypothesis as to how the US authorities might facilitate his transport from Europe to the US.

If, just for the sake of argument, we rule out the possibility that Assange will voluntarily board a plane to the US to face whatever "treason" or whatever charges they want to lay against him, how you think the US authorities might get Assange onto US soil? Now bear in mind that any speculative, hypothetical answer you suggest can be twisted around and used to dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist. All you would have done is try to think through scenarios, as to how they would facilitate his transportation from the UK or Sweden and yet that's mocked as a conspiracy. No, it's not a conspiracy, it's a possible scenario, it's a hypothetical answer to a question.

EnglishLulu wrote:
All I'm saying is I don't know either way.
wavefreak58 wrote:
And neither do I. You are willing to give Assange far more latitude than I. I see two women with issues regarding Assange's sexual behavior and a very large number of people assuming they are simply tools of something (but not a conspiracy).
It's not a matter of giving him latitude like I'm giving him a special concession. All along, I've said it's about the legal and general principle of innocent until proven guilty (unlike the attitude of the likes of Sarah Palin who's already decided he's guilty of "treason" D'oh! And Biden has called him a "terrorist".) Lots of Assange supporters are convinced of his innocence. I'm not one of those people, but nor am I convinced of his guilty either. I've never suggested that he should be exempt from or above the law in respect of these sexual misconduct allegations.

And again, I'll say what I've said before. Some people have suggested the women were a honey-trap, and even Assange's lawyer used that term, but I've said it's was wrong for Assange's lawyer to use that term. That is outlandishly conspiracy-theory-ish - although not beyond the realms of possibility because security services have been known to use such methods before. It's been widely reported that Mordechai Vanunu was caught by similar method.

However, saying that the honey-trap theory is a bit far-fetched and unlikely doesn't rule out the possibility that the enquiries the women initially made at the police station (apparently, to try to get him to undergo STD/Hiv testing) led to a prosecutor looking at the file and then dismissing the idea of charges... but then political pressure and other parties taking up the case to further their own aims. Given the apparent links between Karl Rove and Swedish politicians, I wouldn't rule it out. But then again, I don't know for sure either. I've just set out some information that suggests a link between powerful US and Swedish political players, I haven't come to any conclusions, more asked does this mean anything, if so what?

EnglishLulu wrote:
Unless and until the US authorities make their move, and the latest news reports are that they have prepared some indictments.
wavefreak58 wrote:
Again, back to the big bad U.S. You keep pointing out the nefarious intentions of the U.S. and I keep pointing out that Assange might actually have sexual issues. And if the U.S does prepare an indictment, aren't they working WITHIN the legal system? Is it already assumed that this speculated indictment has no basis in law, it is nothing more than political maneuvering to silence Assange? Assange and his supporters on one hand decry the duplicity of the United States (sadly, a charge not entirely meritless), but when the U.S. works within its own legal framework, it is ALSO acting badly? What is the U.S. to do? Meekly roll over and take it in the ass (without a condom)?

Assange has attacked the U.S. but the U.S. has no right to defend itself?
*sigh* Again, as for the big bad US with the underlying accusation of if you're not with us you're against us anti-Americanism... I've repeatedly, *repeatedly* said I'm equal opportunities scathing and contemptuous of corruption and criminal activitity and wrongdoing on the part of any politicians or officials or businesspeople, it's just that this thread happens to be about the US (and Sweden and the UK).

If you want to start up a thread critical about corruption in Nigeria, or China, or anywhere else, let me know, and I'll join in that bitchfest too.

Honestly, it's getting a bit tedious and tiring that whenever anyone voices the slightest bit of criticism the standard response is an accusation of anti-American behaviour. I thought you guys had done with all the unAmerican McCarthy type bollocks? Apparently not.

As for you pointing out *again* that you think Assange might have sexual issues, I would point out *again* that nowhere have I denied that possibility. If you can find anywhere that I have asserted his absolute categorical innocence, please re-post it and call me a liar. Failing that, will you please stop trying to put words in my mouth and argue against something I've never said, because I have said all along that I have no opinion whatsoever as to his innocence or guilt relating to those allegations, they are a matter for a Swedish investigation and, if it comes to it, court of law.

As for the US working within the legal system in preparing an indictment... I would say Yes, of course the US is within its rights to do that, but I would qualify that by saying that's not a 'blank cheque' to effect and indictment whatever it takes.

The reason why there is speculation that an indictment might have no basis in law is because if it was that simple, the US would have already drawn up an indictment by now. They've had since the Collateral Murder video to point to which laws were broken. But to date they haven't been able to do so, other than for politicians to vaguely rant that it's illegal and criminal and he's a terrorist.

There has even been talk of enacting new laws and trying to make them retrospective in order to prosecute him!

And when you talk about the US working within its own legal framework, I would point out that the US is experienced in sophistry in this regard, denying PoWs their rights under the Geneva Convention and calling them 'enemy combatants' Bush (along with Blair) ordering an illegal war. Torture is illegal, but 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (come on, really?!? It's torture) are not.

The problem is that there isn't really a US legal framework as such. There are goalposts that are moved at whim and will.

And there's a difference in perspective and terminology here. What you call an "attack" on the US, other people call the exposure of criminality and corruption.

EnglishLulu wrote:
As for hiding behind a team of lawyers... you might want to check your constitution. The right to legal counsel is a person's constitutional right under the 6th amendment.
Wavefreak58 wrote:
Condescension now?

Assange is NOT an American citizen and hence has no rights under our Constitution.. And if Assange is an anarchist, he has no respect for our (or any other) legal system, anyway. If you check the Constitution (it is to be capitalized, btw), there is a clause that allows for charges of treason.

Invoking single clauses of the Constitution is a fools game and intellectually bankrupt. The Constitution is not a strictly logical document and in fact was designed with competing checks and balances precisely because human interactions are complex and varied. It is convenient that when actors on the world stage feel the need, they invoke the Constitution, but when it impedes their agendas it is forgotten.
Oh, come on, you were begging for a condescending response there! You were the one who invited it by virtue of your absolutely preposterous assertion that Assange should dispense with the services of the legal team who you accused him of cowardly hiding behind. If you're going to make such preposterous silly knee-jerk statements, such as arguing against a well-established legal right that is enshrined in your own constitution then you can't possibly be hoping to be taken seriously! Really?!?

Anyone being tried pursuant to that legal system is afforded the safeguards pursuant to that legal system (when they're not removed by shifting goalposts like detention without charge or trial in Guantanamo), and that would include foreign citizens.

Your apparent comparison with treason is erroneous. That is because while, as mentioned previously, foreigners would be afforded the right to legal representation as would US citizens, being subject to the same laws, you've failed to take into account the definition of treason, as being the actions of a citizen against their own country. Yes, US law applies to foreign citizens, but by virtue of the definition of treason, they can't be treasonous. Your argument was a bit of a [/logic].

EnglishLulu wrote:
I look forward to hearing details of your new campaign to abolish the 6th Amendment rights to legal counsel
wavefreaks58 wrote:
How about your campaign to deny the rights of women that are subject to unwanted sexual contact? You seem perfectly willing to throw two women under the bus. Which is really our central issue now, isn't it? You see the rights of Assange being infringed. I see the rights of two women being infringed. I personally think that in this case, their issues take precedence.
You're the one who was all up in arms about how he shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a legal team (a suggestion that is contrary to the provision of 6th amendment rights in your country).

I don't think I've argued for any such contradictions. I haven't argued for women to be denied rights. (Given I'm a woman myself that would be a curious state of affairs) I haven't been willing to throw two women under the bus.

As for Assange's rights being infringed, yes and no. His general 'right to privacy' pursuant to Swedish law relating to sexual offence cases has been breached. But you've obviously not read carefully what I've written, because I've pointed out that all the arguments about the hypocrisy of Assange and privacy, have overlooked the rights of the two alleged victims. I don't think anyone's rights should take precedence. Assange is innocent until proven guilty. The women should be entitled to have their allegations taken seriously and investigated. I've already said all that. So again, you seem to be arguing against things I've never said or suggested. You seem to be making that point as though it contradicts something I've said. It doesn't. I've said that the allegations should be taken seriously. (Although I pointed out that they were investigated, and dropped, and subsequently picked up by a prosecutor apparently due to political motivation.) That doesn't mean that there is or isn't a case to answer. That is - if it comes to it - for a judge to decide. Again, I've made that point before.

The issue I do have a particular problem with is extraditing him *for questioning*. It was mentioned by the judge in the English court that ASsange would have a reasonable expectation that the case would be dropped and there would be no charges. (And he's seen statements and knows more details than me.) I think it's arguably an inappropriate (and suspect) use of the extradition proceedings (given the suggestions that it's a ruse to get him to Sweden to facilitate his onward extradition to the US). If the extradition proceedings related to actual charges, then I'd say he ought to go back to Sweden and answer those charges. The fact is, at present, there are no charges. Yes, he has to answer to those allegations, but they can easily question him at the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard in London. If it's then determined that he should be charged, then he should be extradited. He should be extradited to Sweden to face charges (if it comes to that) relating to those sexual assault allegations. He should not, under any circumstances, be extradited for political purposes in order to facilitate the US authorities being able to extradite him or kidnap him or whatever. Again, I've flagged up before Sweden's dubious history in that regard of complicity in extraordinary rendition and forcible repatriations and breaching people's humans rights.

So, again, please read what I've said previously, and don't argue that I'm willing to throw women under a bus, when I haven't said anything to even suggest such a thing. And don't argue that I'm in favour of overlooking or denying women's rights, again when I've haven;t suggested anything of the sort, in fact I've been careful to state that the allegations ought to be taken seriously, that the allegations have to be answered to, and if it comes to it return to Sweden to face trial. And unless and until that happens he remains innocent until proven guilty.



EnglishLulu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2006
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 735

21 Dec 2010, 2:48 am

Alla wrote:
I think it is obvious the guy has Asperger's. The fact that he does not want to reveal information about himself and his own life is often associated with aspie savants; people seem to think that he is hiding information because he is being paid by the secret service or is involved in some sort of secret campaign when he is probably just a private -person and thinks that there is nothing special about his life to reveal. He was probably a geek all these years and didn't have much of "a life" in the way NTs would understand.
Actually, yes, back on track in terms of the topic of this thread:

An internet dating profile that is alleged to be Assange's has been posted. OKCupid has 'personality tests' and apparently he scored 39 on the Asperger's test.

The test on that internet dating website is supposed to be the same or similar to the Wired one:

"Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen and his colleagues at Cambridge's Autism Research Centre have created the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, or AQ, as a measure of the extent of autistic traits in adults. In the first major trial using the test, the average score in the control group was 16.4. Eighty percent of those diagnosed with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher. The test is not a means for making a diagnosis, however, and many who score above 32 and even meet the diagnostic criteria for mild autism or Asperger's report no difficulty functioning in their everyday lives. "

As for why he doesn't want to disclose information, he, his lawyer and even his son have apparently been subject to death threats, so it's understandable why his legal team didn't want to disclose his bail address.



flamingshorts
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 489
Location: Brisbane Aust

21 Dec 2010, 3:48 am

EnglishLulu wrote:
...
An internet dating profile that is alleged to be Assange's has been posted. OKCupid has 'personality tests' and apparently he scored 39 on the Asperger's test.
...


It appears to be the wired one. Some webpages say its "39%" (grrr sic), . I dont have an okcupid account so I cant see for myself. I assume it 39 out of 50 can anyone confirm that is the case?



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

21 Dec 2010, 4:31 am

EnglishLulu wrote:
An internet dating profile that is alleged to be Assange's has been posted. OKCupid has 'personality tests' and apparently he scored 39 on the Asperger's test.

The test on that internet dating website is supposed to be the same or similar to the Wired one: "Eighty percent of those diagnosed with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher. ... Many who score above 32 and even meet the diagnostic criteria for mild autism or Asperger's report no difficulty functioning in their everyday lives."

You say "apparently", where does that information come from? If it's something that is displayed publicly on the OKCupid site I'm surprised that it hasn't already been referred to in at least a couple of the many articles which have referred to his OKCupid profile etc. The parallels with McKinnon would surely be "irresistible" to the media. :lol

Assuming it's true then it does seem like substantial evidence for his being on the spectrum. :)

I'm still reeling a little from Jaron Lanier's article on the "Hazards of Nerd Supremacy", about how Wikileaks' activities, especially the most recent release to newspapers of the 250,000+ US cables, may not in fact be very constructive, reaffirming and justifying as they do our society's increasingly naive attitude towards "data", ie. that "information" in enough quantity is the same thing as "truth", and the more of it we have the better, etc.

But this "black and white" attitude would definitely fit with Assange being Aspergers.

Am still trying to understand exactly what Lanier means. He seems to be saying that distributing/disseminating information/data to everyone is a mistake, ( because it is like, or is not like "money"? ), that our "personhood" depends on organising and maintaining barriers between levels and sections of data, on in fact a great deal of structuring of data-accessibility.

Assange apparently argued that releasing info/data as Wikileaks have done should exacerbate the tendency of govts to secrecy and that this would lead to a sort of increasing "constipation" and paralysis, or breakdown, of the most "corrupt" states, and Lanier appears to agree with the first part of this, saying that govts hold on data/info will become even more authoritarian in response to Wikileaks, to maintain the structure.

But where Lanier seems to diverge from Assange's assessment of the consequences is that he thinks secrecy is not a symptom of corrupt or abusive govt, but simply of govt, of democracy, an essential part of maintaining a space for the individual in a complex society. Lanier believes that "secrecy", ( barriers around certain collections and levels of information ), is a necessary part of complex social systems.

Heirarchies, necessary heirachies of accessibility, is what Lanier appears to be talking about. And people on the Autism Spectrum are notoriously oblivious to, and/or disinclined to participate in or respect, heirarchies.

Assange has said that he is not an anarchist, ie. he is not against govts as such, but against abusive/corrupt govt, and seems to believe that he/Wikileaks can provoke such govts, ( esp the USA ), into a state of paralysis and breakdown by challenging their "secrecy", but Lanier seems to be arguing that Wikileaks, by attacking/damaging the secrecy by which all govt works, may *require*/oblige all govts to put up more barriers.

And that only those govts which have the technology/capacity ( and will ) to put up yet more barriers will survive ( threats like Wikileaks ) in the long-term?
.



Last edited by ouinon on 21 Dec 2010, 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

21 Dec 2010, 7:14 am

EnglishLulu wrote:
So, again, please read what I've said previously, and don't argue that I'm willing to throw women under a bus, when I haven't said anything to even suggest such a thing. And don't argue that I'm in favour of overlooking or denying women's rights, again when I've haven;t suggested anything of the sort, in fact I've been careful to state that the allegations ought to be taken seriously, that the allegations have to be answered to, and if it comes to it return to Sweden to face trial. And unless and until that happens he remains innocent until proven guilty.


You keep using lots of words to argue a very simple thing - that there is behind the scenes activity happening so that the U.S. can extradite Asssange from Sweden. But your EVIDENCE of this activity is based on nothing but speculation, whereas there is ACTUAL evidence that questionable sexual activity has taken place, even if not proven illegal.

Does the United States have an extradition treaty with the U.K.? Or Australia, for that matter? The United States, if they are the big bad actor as portrayed by Assange and his ilk, does not NEED to have him in Sweden. We are all powerful, heavy handed, nefarious "bastards" (to use his term) and when we strike, he won't be able to hide anywhere (except maybe the tribal areas of Pakistan),. If the U.S. is so good at pulling strings, how is it that the judge in the U.K. did not find a way to keep him in jail THERE - the U.K. is nothing but an American lap dog in Assange's mind.

And what difference does it make that he does or does not have Asperger's? What's with this thing about slapping the Asperger's label on public figures? Maybe we should make a movie - Aspies Behaving Badly


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

21 Dec 2010, 7:32 am

wavefreak58 wrote:
And what difference does it make that he does or does not have Asperger's?

Something to do with explaining and exploring Assange's actions/behaviour.
.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

21 Dec 2010, 7:38 am

ouinon wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
And what difference does it make that he does or does not have Asperger's?

Something to do with explaining and exploring Assange's actions/behaviour.


I suppose. But I guess I have problems with confusing Asperger's with simple egoism. I know that I have rigid thinking patterns (as evidenced in this conversation) but I also know that I can be an ass and that has nothing do to with being on the spectrum. Sometimes being a jerk is simply that.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


nemorosa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,121
Location: Amongst the leaves.

21 Dec 2010, 8:36 am

wavefreak58 wrote:
You keep using lots of words to argue a very simple thing - that there is behind the scenes activity happening so that the U.S. can extradite Asssange from Sweden. But your EVIDENCE of this activity is based on nothing but speculation, whereas there is ACTUAL evidence that questionable sexual activity has taken place, even if not proven illegal.


EnglishLulu writes at length in order to be precise about her meaning. I understand this completely as all through my own life I have been at great pains to use the correct language to articulate myself to avoid any misunderstanding. Unfortunately few seem to have the patience to listen, having preconceived ideas of what I meant to say. That's just lazy. You've demonstrated that you haven't read and understood what she is saying.

As for the statement that there is evidence of questionable sexual activity - that's just not true. There is nothing of any official public record of the case against Assange at this point. Only second/third hand rumour and innuendo. Please correct me if I'm wrong and point me in the direction of the official evidence.

Quote:
The United States, if they are the big bad actor as portrayed by Assange and his ilk, does not NEED to have him in Sweden. We are all powerful, heavy handed, nefarious "bastards" (to use his term)


What is it with so many Americans and playing the victim? Give it a rest. I don't know of any other nation with this attitude.

Quote:
If the U.S. is so good at pulling strings, how is it that the judge in the U.K. did not find a way to keep him in jail THERE - the U.K. is nothing but an American lap dog in Assange's mind.


There is a difference between omnipotence and having influence.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

21 Dec 2010, 9:40 am

nemorosa wrote:
As for the statement that there is evidence of questionable sexual activity - that's just not true. There is nothing of any official public record of the case against Assange at this point. Only second/third hand rumour and innuendo. Please correct me if I'm wrong and point me in the direction of the official evidence.


You're not serious. There is no doubt that sexual activity took place. The fact that the two aggrieved parties went to law enforcement is sufficient to call the activity questionable. Note that I did NOT say illegal.


Quote:
What is it with so many Americans and playing the victim? Give it a rest. I don't know of any other nation with this attitude.


Maybe because the United States is the convenient 'bad actor' on the world stage when some vested interest needs to obfuscate their true intentions. It seems all too easy to place the United States at the center of what ails this world, and far too many choose that tactic, knowing full well that there is far more complexity to international relations than "American Hegemony is the root of all evil".


Quote:
There is a difference between omnipotence and having influence.


DUH! Clearly, rhetorical hyperbole is lost on you.

But lets look at influence. The premise is that the United States has enough influence to induce extradition to Sweden on trumped up charges and then a second extradition to the United States to prosecute Assange. But as soon as you admit that the U.S has enough influence to do that, then it also has enough influence to have Assange extradited from ANY country with which they have an extradition treaty. All they need to due is trump up appropriate charges in the current host country. The extra step of getting Assange to Sweden is wholly unnecessary.

Apparently, the United States, so powerfully influential, cannot induce the U.K. to keep Assange incarcerated. Perhaps the U.S. is not quite as influential as you think.


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


flamingshorts
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 489
Location: Brisbane Aust

21 Dec 2010, 9:47 am

This could have consequences because Julian Assange has such a profile now. Assuming AS is valid (seems likely) then I can see Asperger's replaced with "Assange Syndrome".

And President Palin introducing the Neuro-Patriot Act where everyone with Assange Syndrome has to be registered.



nemorosa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,121
Location: Amongst the leaves.

21 Dec 2010, 10:11 am

wavefreak58 wrote:
You're not serious. There is no doubt that sexual activity took place. The fact that the two aggrieved parties went to law enforcement is sufficient to call the activity questionable. Note that I did NOT say illegal.


I never said no sexual activity took place. You used the loaded word "questionable", even if you did not say illegal.

Quote:
Maybe because the United States is the convenient 'bad actor' on the world stage when some vested interest needs to obfuscate their true intentions. It seems all too easy to place the United States at the center of what ails this world, and far too many choose that tactic, knowing full well that there is far more complexity to international relations than "American Hegemony is the root of all evil".


There you go again. I don't know many people who would say that "American Hegemony is the root of all evil". Stop using this as a diversionary tactic when any criticism is brought to bear, as it stifles any sensible debate. Like EnglishLuLU, I am equal opportunities when it comes to wrongdoing. My government has done some awful things but I don't take it personally when those issues are raised or use wounded national pride as a smokescreen.


Quote:
DUH! Clearly, rhetorical hyperbole is lost on you.

But lets look at influence. The premise is that the United States has enough influence to induce extradition to Sweden on trumped up charges and then a second extradition to the United States to prosecute Assange. But as soon as you admit that the U.S has enough influence to do that, then it also has enough influence to have Assange extradited from ANY country with which they have an extradition treaty. All they need to due is trump up appropriate charges in the current host country. The extra step of getting Assange to Sweden is wholly unnecessary.

Apparently, the United States, so powerfully influential, cannot induce the U.K. to keep Assange incarcerated. Perhaps the U.S. is not quite as influential as you think.


Well clearly, you shouldn't use rhetorical hyperbole with me. Surely you can see that the influence exerted by the U.S. is not equal in all countries, with all of the people all of the time? There is nothing contradictory in say, leaning on a politician in Sweden and getting their way, but failing to have any leverage on the British Judiciary. I'm not saying any of this is true, merely putting it forward as an idea. Likewise the methods of influence will vary; bribes, blackmail, threats, favours, use your imagination.

Somehow the U.S. was certainly successful in persuading the German authorities in not prosecuting several CIA agents who kidnapped German citizens in Germany.



wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

21 Dec 2010, 11:07 am

nemorosa wrote:
I never said no sexual activity took place. You used the loaded word "questionable", even if you did not say illegal.


Is it not questionable?

Quote:
Well clearly, you shouldn't use rhetorical hyperbole with me.


I will try to be more direct. I still forget that the need for precision among Aspies is not just a matter of style.

Quote:
Surely you can see that the influence exerted by the U.S. is not equal in all countries, with all of the people all of the time? There is nothing contradictory in say, leaning on a politician in Sweden and getting their way, but failing to have any leverage on the British Judiciary.


It is almost certainly true that the influence of the U.S. is uneven. But that in and of itself is inconsistent with Assange's own assessments of the U.S. as a bad actor. His rhetoric is that the U.S. is a primary, if not THE primary, vector of 'bad things'. This is another bone of contention I have with his tactics. Clearly, the US bends or breaks the rules according to some impenetrable calculus, but it is also clear that ALL governments do this. Assange has, in his own words, singled out the U.S. as the primary target of his agenda. He disregards the fact the even if elements in the U.S. are corrupt, that the nation as a whole is not, and that damaging the U.S., as is his expressed desire, in fact damages more than just those elements that are indeed corrupt.

Quote:
Somehow the U.S. was certainly successful in persuading the German authorities in not prosecuting several CIA agents who kidnapped German citizens in Germany.


Somehow indeed, but you cannot claim that whatever leverage was applied, it was not without the Germans also acting in their own self interests as perceived by them and not the U.S. This is the falsehood of the idea that America is somehow the defacto ruler of the world, pushing its agenda down unwilling throats. Each government will act in its own self interest. The U.S. can at best convince an ally, or even an enemy, that certain actions align with the self interests of both, but the United States cannot force its will on anyone. Even the Iraq war was not possible without legal wrangling via the U.N. and other international interests (the actual legality is another topic).


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


wavefreak58
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,419
Location: Western New York

21 Dec 2010, 1:46 pm

No irony in this (sic)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hjnfhMZase2N4O_W7kEhcCuGtlvA?docId=55e44e1d710441dd942fcaa2e044adcb


_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

22 Dec 2010, 2:42 pm

Totally totally amazing article by Bruce Sterling on Wikileaks, published at Webstock:

http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/

:D